From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 9 16:42:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08058 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:42:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from seagull.cdrom.com (cracauer@seagull.cdrom.com [204.216.27.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA08053 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:42:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cracauer@seagull.cdrom.com) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by seagull.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.6) id QAA23676 ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <19971010014016.54859@cons.org> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:40:16 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Thomas David Rivers Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). References: <199710092227.SAA07605@lakes.dignus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.81 In-Reply-To: <199710092227.SAA07605@lakes.dignus.com>; from Thomas David Rivers on Thu, Oct 09, 1997 at 06:27:47PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In <199710092227.SAA07605@lakes.dignus.com>, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > > I have a program, written for Linux, that uses the uname() information > as part of its license check... > > Unfortunately, the check fails... the company indicates that the > failure is due to incorrect uname() information. > > So - does the uname() call under Linux emulation claim to be a LINUX > box? - or - does it claim to be a FreeBSD box... > > Which should it do? Seems to me, for accurate Linux emulation, it should > claim to be Linux... Add a program named "uname" to /compat/linux/bin or such that puts out hardcoded strings of your choice. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg/Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/